What began as a strategy to combat fraud and irregular migration now threatens to become a system of mass control that reaches the entire U.S. population. And it’s only just beginning.
Reality seems to outpace fiction in the United States. Donald Trump’s government decided to expand digital surveillance to combat fraud, curb crime, and pursue undocumented immigrants. But this decision could become a long-term problem for all citizens. These tools could scale up to wider levels and subject the entire population to extreme surveillance that undermines the right to privacy.
In a briefing held by American Community Media (ACoM), several experts analyzed the surveillance landscape being implemented by the current government. They also proposed solutions on how to protect citizens’ privacy and their freedoms.
Nicole Álvarez, Senior Policy Analyst for Technology Policy at the Center for American Progress, was blunt about the new scenario: “A surveillance tower without precedent is being built. A system that uses citizens’ data for purposes that exceed their original intent and without consent.”
The expert stressed the distrust that can arise from privacy violations: “When people give their information to the State—such as Social Security numbers, medical records, or tax returns—they do so under the understanding that it will be used solely for that purpose. Today, that trust is broken,” she said.
For Álvarez, there are two major problems: the abuse of secondary data and the centralization of federal information systems. Regarding the first, she explained that it occurs when data provided to the government for a specific purpose is reused for another without the citizen’s knowledge or consent.
One example is the transfer of IRS (Internal Revenue Service) data to ICE. These records were obtained to identify and deport immigrants who had paid taxes in good faith. For Álvarez, this completely undermines trust in government.
The solutions she proposed were to remain cautious about voluntarily shared information and to support movements in favor of transparency and the right to privacy. “Systemic protections are needed against these extreme measures,” she concluded.
Emerald Sage: “This is no longer just a migrant issue”
Emerald Sage, Associate at the Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology, noted that digital surveillance promoted by the Trump administration has already reached a breaking point. “This is no longer just a migrant issue—it’s about the entire population.”
At the conference, Sage highlighted two key investigations on digital surveillance. The first, published in American Dragnet (2002), revealed how ICE accessed data from utility services and driver’s licenses to monitor thousands of people in the country: “When people signed up for water or electricity, the information they gave to utility companies ended up in ICE’s hands. That is illegal.”
On the other hand, the report Rating the Genome (2024) documented the expansion of a program for mass DNA collection. “The federal government has been collecting DNA under the assumption that people will commit crimes in the future. This is totally unfair,” she said.
The genetic profiles are incorporated into the CODIS system, used by law enforcement nationwide. But for Sage, the biggest concern is that the pace of profile incorporation is much higher than expected, without distinguishing age or legal status.
Sage, like Álvarez, emphasized the distrust generated by these measures, especially among vulnerable communities such as migrants: “Many parents are not sending their children to school or seeking medical care for fear of reprisals.”
Sophia Koop: “The cost to rights and freedoms is enormous”
Finally, Sophia Koop, Senior Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), focused on two practices that put the right to privacy at risk: social media surveillance and electronic device inspections at the U.S. border.
Koop revealed that, since Trump’s first administration, the State Department has required visa applicants to submit a report of their social media activity from the last five years. For the expert, this measure not only discourages citizens but also has an intimidating effect: “Many refrain from posting political opinions for fear of jeopardizing a visa.”
Surveillance, she added, is no longer limited to applicants: “Today it is applied continuously to legal residents, students, and visa workers in the United States, which has led many to delete or self-censor their online activity.” She even noted that authorities have reviewed posts related to Palestine, Gaza, and even “expressions considered hostile to U.S. values.”
Most concerning, according to Koop, is that agents are not only seeking information about the traveler but also about third parties, such as colleagues or journalistic sources. “They justify it in the name of counterterrorism, but there is no evidence that it prevents attacks or crimes. The cost to rights and freedoms is enormous,” she concluded.